A comprehensive survey of government auditors’ self-efficacy and

professional development for improving audit quality

Shue-Ching Lee,1,2 Jau-Ming Su,3 Sang-Bing Tsai, 4,5,6,7
Tzu-Li Lu,8 andWeiwei Dong 9

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Introduction

Case description

Discussion and Evaluation

Conclusions
Go to:

Introduction
Audit authorities supervise the implementation of government budgets and evaluate legitimate
use of administrative resources to ensure funding being used wisely, economically, and
effectively. In practice, besides inspecting existing financial records, government audit
authorities should maximize the use of resources by ensuring that the administrative units,
departments, and sections of the executive branch achieve their desired goals economically and
efficiently. Since the quality of governmental auditing services not only reflects how the
government functions but also influences how people view the government and its executive
branches. Under the intense wave of globalization, changes are accompanied by technological
innovations, economic liberalization and increasing awareness of an active citizenship, all of
which in turn bring tremendous challenges to the Taiwan government in many frontlines
including governmental reform, economic growth, social welfare, tax revenues, anti-corruption,
insurance and pension plans. These issues are strongly influenced by international events, the
government’s policies and finance regulations. The ranking of Taiwan by IMD (International
Institute for Management Development an organized which ranks country’s performance based
on economic performance, government efficiency, business efficiency, and infrastructure) is
lower than many other Asian countries, especially in government efficiency. Thus, ensuring
audit quality becomes an important approach to increase the value of resources and to stimulate
economic development. Governmental audit quality plays an essential role for the effectiveness
of an administration. A quality audit involves reviewing policies according to international
standards and perspectives, and provides insight, predictions, and warnings to related
organizations. Such practice can reflect the effectiveness of a government.
DeAngelo (1981) defined audit quality as “the market-assessed joint probability that a given
auditor will both (a) discover a breach in a client’s accounting system and (b) report the breach.”
A number of scholars emphasized that, for auditors, an audit quality implies that the audit is
accomplished according to the methodology or guideline defined by the audit authority. As for
audit authorities, an audit quality means that the audit report can withstand the challenge in court
(Knechel et al. 2013). As noted by social scientists, factors that can improve audit quality include
(1) intensive training (Knechel et al. 2013), (2) audit specialization and execution of error
detection, procedure analysis, audit risk evaluation, and internal control deficiency discovery
(Stephens 2011), (3) the knowledge and skills to make professional decisions (Knechel 2010;
Bobek et al. 2012), and (4) the professionalism of the auditors (Nagy 2012). Specialization has
become more important in the current auditing environment, and the auditing team characteristic
has evolved into one of the crucial factors for audit quality. In today’s dynamic and demanding
economic environment, professional auditors need to maintain competence and knowledge of
current developments to enable them to act with due skill and care. Continuing professional
development (CPD) enables a professional auditor to develop and maintain the capabilities to
perform competently within the professional environment.
There are currently 666 governmental auditors in Taiwan. All of them are either highly educated
or richly experienced, or both, as they had first been required to have passed the National Civil
Service examinations in accounting and auditing. Most of them are certified public accountants,
engineering specialists, or certified internal auditors. In professions other than auditors, such as
teachers, nurses or social workers, self-efficacy has been used to evaluate job satisfaction, job
performance, career development, and health promoting behavior. The findings from these
professions demonstrate the importance of self-efficacy for predicting and improving work
performance. If an auditing quality is sensitive to ability, effort, and persistence, then efforts
made to change self-efficacy and professional development (by changing beliefs, information,
and knowledge) should improve performance. Although previous research in auditing
accountability, mandate, function, procedures, practices and auditor independence, personality
traits, job stress, organizational commitment and intention to leave have been discussed, the
relationship between the self-efficacy, professional development and auditors’ audit quality has
not yet been fully investigated.
In recent years, the Taiwan government has shifted its auditing focus from a more concern with
legality and financial regulation to that of economic, efficient, and effective performance
auditing, which is arguably more diverse and complicated. As creating and cultivating a
developmental network is an arguably optimal approach to ensure continuous improvement in a
rapidly changing work environment (such as globalization, etc.), one such strategy is to develop
a mentoring system. High-quality mentoring is characterized by mutual learning, wherein
partners can experience an increasing sense of work, knowledge, empowerment, and enthusiasm,
as well as a desire for more connections. The auditors have large workloads. In 2012, they
inspected approximately 8800 central and local governmental organizations, and audited the
spending of regular and special budgets totaling US$601 billion. On average, each auditor was
responsible for 13 organizations and US$902 million. Time constraints and workload pressure
can reduce efforts toward knowledge sharing. Workload pressure may degrade both the extent
and quality of knowledge sharing among members of an auditing team. Due to the stressful
working environment, personnel loss is a key factor which cause instability of the structure in the
audit organizations (Fig. 1). Such problem significantly lower the audit quality. In order to retain
auditors, audit authorities must develop an enticing future outlook that emphasizes feedback and
learning within the organization.
Fig. 1
The dynamic changes of personnel between 2003 and 2015
The purpose of this study is to advance the understanding of factors that may enhance auditors’
audit quality and to ultimately provide practical recommendations for the audit authorities. To
evaluate whether audit quality can be improved by the professional development and self-
efficacy of auditors, we conducted a large-scale survey of auditors working for Taiwan
government. The results allowed us to propose a series of management recommendations to
assist auditors in enhancing professional growth and increasing self-efficacy.
Go to:

Literature review

Self-efficacy
Auditors do not work in isolation. It is crucial to understand how the people, tasks, and
environment that auditors interact with influence auditor performance. Bandura (1977) proposed
that individual behavior is a result achieved from interactions between environment and personal
factors. Although self-efficacy is individual’s subjective view of one’s own ability, it profoundly
influences personal actions, motivations, persistence, and therefore, the ultimate behaviors
(Bandura 1991). Gist and Mitchell (1992) stated that self-efficacy is an important motivational
construct. It influences individual choices, goals, emotional reactions, effort, coping, and
persistence. Self-efficacy relates to individual task performance. Self-efficacy has a positive
impact on performance because high self-efficacy enables the effective regulation of human
behavior through a range of cognitive, motivational, and affective decisional processes
(Bandura 1997).
Some of the determinants of self-efficacy are well-recognized, attributed causes (i.e., effort,
ability, task difficulty). Bandura (1986) pointed out that persistence and level of effort mediated
the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Bandura (1989) stated that confidence
resulted from successful execution has a positive impact on performance. Individuals which high
self-efficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered, rather than as threats to be
avoided. These individuals set themselves challenging goals, maintain a strong commitment to
these goals, and persist in their efforts in the case of a failure. Successful experience not only
increases personal expectation on control and maturity of associated actions, but also provides
source of self-efficacy for next challenge. Many studies have demonstrated that level of self-
efficacy can predict work attitudes, job training, work performance, job satisfaction, educational
development, and knowledge sharing (Randhawa 2004; Cabrera et al. 2006; Hsu et al. 2007; Hoy
and Miskel 2001). Therefore, self-efficacy is widely perceived as one critical factor in
determining how much effort and resources a person invests when confronting challenges.
Since self-efficacy is an important construct, it can increase energy, provide direction, and
stimulate persistence (Porter et al. 1974). In fact, self-efficacy plays an important role for all
professionals, including auditors. Hayati et al. (2014) stated that five job characteristics including
skill variety, task identity, task significance, feedback and authority have play a critical role in
growing work motivation. As auditing is a profession that provides services based on knowledge
and experiences with human resource as the key element, the motivation and aptitude of an
auditor to accomplish a goal is a strong advantage. Auditors with higher self-efficacy are more
likely to continue investing in goal-achievement behaviour. Therefore, self-efficacy will
influence behavior by affecting motivation and confidence to overcome difficulties and improve
performance.
The strong positive relationship is the result of past performances influence on self-efficacy. Hoy
and Miskel (2001) believed that the past work performance has a significant impact on the
individual’s self-efficacy. The continuous success would definitely enhance individuals’ self-
efficacy whereas the constant failures would create personal doubt and reduce personal self-
efficacy. Since auditors accumulate knowledge and experience from clients to make professional
judgments, auditing experience and professionalization can influence professional awareness.
Moriarity (1979) found better performance by experienced auditors at bankruptcy prediction,
which reflected superior ability of experienced auditors at auditing tasks. More specifically,
perceptual self-efficacy is the basic element of initiative and the level of self-confidence
necessary to accomplish a goal. People with high self-efficacy are more confident in their
intellectual ability to allocate resources, control situations, and make critical decisions. Similarly,
Cervone et al. (1991) observed that individuals with high self-efficacy learn more from feedback,
respond more adaptively to decision environment, and overtime, are better able to translate their
learning into performance. Charkhabi et al. (2013) found that when people with high self-
efficacy encounter academic problems, they are less likely to give up and would try to find
useful solutions to fix the problems. Therefore, to successfully resolve a challenge and complete
an auditing task, the problem solver must draw upon experience, knowledge, and cognitive
abilities. As specific knowledge is accumulated and more auditing skills are being developed,
auditors become more likely to produce professional and comprehensive auditing reports.

Professional development
Professional development is a learning process that can promote personal growth, improve
auditing skills, revolutionize working procedures, and increase audit report quality. Due to many
uncertainties of the audit process and unobservable characteristics of the results, audit
specialization is proved to be associated with the capacity of error detection, procedure analysis,
audit risk evaluation, and disclosure of internal deficiency (Stephens 2011). Knowledge is the
primary input factor in producing an audit. The quality of the audit depends on the quality of
auditor judgements during all stages of the audit, including risk assessment, internal control
evaluation, testing, and review. Much research demonstrates the positive effects a good quality
control and review processes on audit quality (Epps and Messier 2007; Bedard et al. 2008).
Professional judgment determines audit procedures, and professionalization provides an
advantage in client disputes. The maintenance of professional competence requires a continuing
awareness and an understanding of relevant technical, professional and business developments.
One of the strategies to advance a better performance is utilizing the modern technology.
Technological advancements enable auditors on engagement teams to conduct electronic reviews
of clients’ workpapers in their offices or from remote locations (Brazel et al. 2004). Audit
software reduces the time required for workpaper preparation. Dodgson (1993) found that the
value of knowledge can increase exponentially when it is networked, reused, and quickly
integrated into business practices and processes. Such applications include decision support and
expert systems, expert knowledge for specific problems, and point-to-point knowledge. Staff
members can access industry best practices, studies, surveys, statistics, and expert knowledge for
specific problems (Silvi 2002).
An auditor’s effort level needs to be tailored to each client within the structure of the basic audit
methodology as applied by the audit team using their best judgement. Professional skepticism as
well as auditor knowledge and expertise increase the quality of auditor judgements. Thus, the
quality of the audit is based on auditor’s professional judgement. Auditors’ perceived goals of
the audit and perceptions of how the audit authority values them influences auditors’ judgments.
The resources needed for an audit depend on the personnel available for an engagement, the
abilities and expertise of the audit team, and the audit technology and methodology being used.
Consequently, assigning personnel with the appropriate levels of technical training and
proficiency to audit engagements is required. Auditors can advance their personal development
through continuous learning to increase their knowledge, open-mindedness, sensitivity to fraud
detection, to set career goals, and to promote peer learning.
Auditors’ learning on the job and their choice of professional services jointly affect audit quality.
The learning effect has a favorable impact on audit quality (Low 2004). While performing audits
over time, auditors accumulate client-specific knowledge so that their posterior beliefs about
clients are updated and become more precise. Bobek et al. (2012) pointed out that audit team
communication, auditor–client negotiation strategy, and usefulness of prior auditing experience
are significantly related to successful resolution of audit challenges. In addition, Bierstaker and
Wright (2001) found that both ability and experience are determinants of performance on an ill-
structured analytical review task and an ill-structured internal control auditing task. Ill-structured
problems are routinely encountered in auditing. In order to solve an ill-structured problem, a
problem solver must draw on experience, knowledge, and cognitive abilities. Vera-Muñoz et al.
(2006) emphasized the importance to audit effectiveness of audit team members sharing
knowledge and expertise with each other to affect a favorable audit outcome. Over time, auditors
gain more client-specific knowledge, which is proportional to audit performance (Beck and
Wu 2006). Auditor knowledge and expertise are also associated with superior performance in an
audit (Nelson and Tan 2005). Also, experience affords opportunities to gain additional
knowledge—which when combined with ability—positively affects performance (Libby and
Luft 1993).
Industry specialization has become an element to not only provide audit quality but also maintain
competitiveness (Miguel 2013). An organization can promote long-term efficacy and survival
development through proper knowledge management. Knowledge is essential for maintaining
competence. Similarly, knowledge is an enduring advantage that is constantly stimulated and
accumulated to evaluate new experience and integrate information (Davenport and Prusak 1998).
Due to the riskiness of audits and the idiosyncratic nature of audit engagements, Nelson (2009)
pointed out that auditing requires various skills such as industry specialization or high level
auditing. An auditor’s with industry expertise has been found to be positively related to the
quality of audits. An auditor who is more knowledgeable in the audited industry has greater audit
ability. Audit experience and professionalization provide positive influence to professional
skepticism, which the audit professional judgment can be raised by professional skepticism and
auditors’ knowledge and specialty. Auditor knowledge and expertise has a direct bearing on the
audit quality. Auditors accumulate knowledge and experience from clients to make professional
judgments. From the aspect of industry specialization and client industry characteristics, an
auditor with strong knowledge in the audit industry is more capable to detect fraud and more
likely to allocate resources to recruitment, training, technology, and audit techniques to improve
audit service quality (Green 2008). In addition, if the audit authority does not provide enough
information and knowledge of the particular industry, this industry would be less represented,
thus, auditors cannot accumulate audit experience for this industry, leading to poor audit quality.
Minix (1987) considered professional development is the willingness to improve personal
knowledge and skill through work. The value of knowledge is through sharing. Knowledge
sharing can improve team performance and obtain best problem solving solution. Knowledge
sharing can solve problems, avoid repeating mistakes and spread the adoption of best practices. It
can enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and integrity of the audit process in formulating the
most appropriate audit opinion. Stewart (1997) stated that transfer of knowledge and innovations
create greater intelligent property for an organization. Workers’ knowledge and ability are the
source of innovation and insight. The capital of innovation is accumulated by not only
encouragement and investment from the organization but also personal creativity growth and
development of workers. Huang (2009) stated that organization learning is how an organization
accumulates knowledge and improves organization performance through workers’ skills to
effectively integrate relevant risk experience and knowledge for developing strategies to deal
with potential crisis. Hendriks (1999) proposed incentives of knowledge sharing are sense of
accomplishment, responsibility, feeling appreciated, operational independence, promotion
opportunity, and work challenge. Many studies have also suggested that organizations need to
develop capacity to improve core procedures and continuous learning to maintain competitive
advantage (Hall 2001; Jashapara 1993; Senge 1990; Johnson 2002). On the other hand, improper
organization structure, poor sharing atmosphere, and fractionation would hinder knowledge
sharing (Davenport and Prusak 1998).
Sadler (1988) proposed that the culture of an organization is a crucial factor affecting attitudes
toward communication and communication processes and systems. Organizational culture
represents the tacit norms, shared values, beliefs, and daily practices that shape the patterns and
qualities of interactions between employees at different hierarchical levels. Senior management
team may potentially mitigate audit challenges, and aid in successful resolution of challenges
that arise. In general, a fair process builds trust and commitment and produces voluntary
cooperation. Voluntary cooperation drives performance, thus leading people to go beyond the
call of duty by sharing their knowledge and applying their creativity. In addition, mentoring can
bring an array of important benefits at a reasonable cost. Anticipated outcomes of a mentoring
program for individuals in a learning organization include acquiring, comprehending, and
applying new knowledge in daily tasks; individually and collaboratively analyzing problems and
proposing solutions; evaluating new technologies or strategies and determining their utility; and
creating new business plans to improve organizational performance (Klinge 2015). Lange et al.
(2015) suggested that for professional service workers, immediate work relevance of continuing
professional development activities was the key determinant of the type of CPD activity rather
than longer term career progression. Performance is used to refer to the individual’s ability to be
creative, innovative, inspiring, and take on challenging tasks to achieve organizational goals for
the greater good. Therefore, audit authorities must create an environment where achieving high
quality is valued, nurtured, and rewarded. Such a requirement contributes to the profession’s
objective of providing high-quality services to meet the needs of the public.

Audit quality
DeAngelo (1981) defined audit quality as “the market-assessed joint probability that a given
auditor will both (a) discover a breach in a client’s accounting system and (b) report the breach.”
Based on this definition, audit quality can be broken down into two components: (1) the
likelihood that an auditor discovers existing misstatements and (2) the likelihood that an auditor
appropriately reacts to the discovery. The first component links to an auditor’s competence and
degree of effort, while the latter relates to an auditor’s objectivity, professional skepticism and
independence. In addition, the effect of audit quality should be determined according to the
maturity of the execution conditions of all key factors that influence the mission performance of
audit authorities. Knechel et al. (2013) stated that audit quality is conceived differently in
different aspects. For the economic supervision, high audit quality means no major mistakes in
the financial report. On the other hand, supervising management authority emphasizes high audit
quality ought to meet professional standards. For auditors, high audit quality implies that the
audit is accomplished according to the methodology or guideline defined by the audit authority.
Whereas for audit authorities, high audit quality means that the audit report can withstand the
challenge of court. As noted by social scientists, factors that can improve audit quality include
(1) intensive training (Knechel et al. 2013), (2) audit specialization and execution of error
detection, procedure analysis, audit risk evaluation, and internal control deficiency discovery
(Stephens 2011), (3) the knowledge and skills to make professional decisions (Knechel 2010;
Bobek et al. 2012), and (4) the professionalism of the auditors (Nagy 2012). Quality of people,
processes, and business plans, those are vital for conducting an efficient and effective audit.
Wallman (1996) pointed out that audit quality is influenced by laws, regulations, economy, and
culture. Carcello et al. (2002) indicated that audit quality is directly linked to the amount of audit
work. Staffing and budget pressures continue to be a threat to audit quality. The time pressure
also impact the quality of audit. The budget that did not include enough time for the engagement
and increase the likelihood of engaging in reduced audit quality acts, happens often and causes
the team to perform a lower quality audit in order to try to meet the budget. Therefore, audit
quality would be determined by individual’s ability to make observation, manage information,
and apply knowledge systematically and logically. Auditors should adjust work load or acquire
assistance according to risk factors, ensuring auditors have sufficient time and resources to deal
with difficult issues.
Auditor knowledge-acquisition activities affect audit quality. Auditors’ learning on the job has a
favorable impact on audit quality. Auditors can enrich their knowledge accumulation by
performing audit services. Lately, audit procedures have devote more emphasis in understanding
client’s industry and business environment. Knechel et al. (2013) stated that audit quality is a
carefully designed audit process that recruits talented employees to be properly motivated and
trained to understand inherent uncertainty and adjust audit strategy to a unique client situation.
The U.K.’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2008) identified five drivers of audit quality: (1)
the culture within an audit firm, (2) the skills and personal qualities of audit partners and staff,
(3) the effectiveness of the audit process, (4) the reliability and usefulness of audit reporting, and
(5) factors outside the control of auditors affecting audit quality. The National Audit Office of
the Taiwan aims to evaluate the audit quality in the following five areas: leadership, personnel,
auditing, clients, and continual improvement. The purpose of auditors’ recommendations is to
eliminate the government deficiency. Based on these areas auditors are expected to provide
independent insight and to be forward-looking, as well as offering advice to improve the
efficiency of government authorities they serve.
Go to:

Methods

Survey participants
As of December 2014, there were 666 auditors in Taiwan government. All auditors surveyed in
this study are highly educated, experienced, or both, and required to pass the National Civil
Service Examinations in accounting and auditing. Most of their job titles are auditors or senior
auditors.
The participants surveyed in this study all are employees of either the Central or local
government audit authorities, including the National Audit Office and its subsidiary Audit
Divisions and Offices, the Education and Agriculture Audit Division, the Construction of
Transportation and Communication Audit Division, the Six Municipality Audit Divisions, and
the 15 county Audit Offices. The survey was conducted using the stratified random sampling
method from April to June 2013.

Questionnaire design
The survey questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part included the collecting of basic
personal information, such as gender, age, education, years of auditing, division affiliation, and
job title. The second part included questions about self-efficacy, professional development and
audit quality, and was designed on the basis of principal component factors and varimax rotation
factor analysis so as to ensure that the questions can cover every conceivable perspective.
All questionnaire items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree). Fourteen items were designed according to the self-efficacy scales designed
by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) and by Tai (2006). 23 items were based on factors related to
professional development, including learning motivation, as addressed by Ames (1992);
knowledge sharing, as addressed by Hendriks (1999); and organization culture, as addressed by
Wallach (1983). 28 items were based on the auditing-related audit quality; thus, the reliability of
each structure was ensured (Nunnally 1978; Bagozzi and Yi 1988). All of these attributes were
developed from information in the literature review and personal interviews with auditing-related
assistant auditor generals and senior auditors. A pilot test was conducted by interviewing 6
senior auditors from New Taipei Municipality Audit Divisions to assess the reliability of the self-
efficacy, professional development, and audit quality attributes. Some wordings in the
questionnaires were rephrased to clarify the questions after the pilot test. And the items listed on
the final survey were examined carefully to avoid repeated questions. The collected data
exhibited high internal consistency with the overall values of Cronbach’s α coefficient. Expert
validity and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to examine reliability and validity of the
questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for self-efficacy, professional development, and
audit quality were 0.906, 0.937, and 0.940 respectively (Table 1).
Table 1
The reliability of each structure

Variable Factor name Factor loading Cronbach α Overall Cronbach α

Self-efficacy Profession and experience 0.598–0.734 0.807 0.906

Confidence and effort 0.535–0.718 0.839

Trend and performance 0.613–0.785 0.729

Professional development Organizational culture 0.534–0.791 0.913 0.937

Learning motivation 0.474–0.822 0.899

 Variable Factor name Factor loading Cronbach α Overall Cronbach α

Training opportunity 0.462–0.839 0.863

Audit quality Leadership management 0.717–0.841 0.931 0.940

Profession quality 0.484–0.773 0.919

Mission goal 0.507–0.697 0.779

Client value 0.564–0.793 0.838

Open in a separate window

In the questionnaire, self-efficacy consists of three dimensions: profession and experience,
confidence and effort, as well as trend and performance. Professional development acquisition
has three dimensions: organizational culture, learning motivation, and training opportunity.
Audit quality comprises four dimensions: leadership management, profession quality, mission
goal and client value.

Sampling accuracy evaluation

The audit authority of the Taiwan comprises 36 assistant auditor generals (5.4 %), 277 senior
auditors (41.6 %), 77 senior inspectors (11.6 %), 231 auditors (34.7 %), and 45 inspectors
(6.7 %). Because the number and titles of government auditors’ positions are regulated by the
law concerned, the accuracy of sampling can be evaluated based on the job titles of the
respondents to ensure that our sample represented a subpopulation of the overall audit authority.
A Chi squared test with p > 0.05 indicates no significant difference between our sample structure
and the matrix structure.
The research framework of this study is illustrated in Fig. 2; the arrows indicate the direction of
influence among the components. Among these variables, self-efficacy is widely thought to have
a significantly positive correlation with performance in different fields. In this study, we
investigated (a) whether auditors’ self-efficacy affects audit quality; (b) the major factors
influencing the professional development of auditors; (c) the relationship between professional
development and self-efficacy and (d) whether professional development through self-efficacy
affects audit quality. After surveyed government audit staffs at various levels in Taiwan, we then
used a survey research method to examine the hypothesized relationships among professional
development, self-efficacy, and audit quality.

Fig. 2
Research framework
Go to:

Results

Responses
Of the 339 questionnaires distributed to active auditors in Taiwan, 326 valid responses were
returned, representing a very high response rate of 96.17 % and a sampling ratio of 48.95 %.

Fair sample structure–matrix structure alignment

Our sample comprised 10 assistant auditor generals (3.1 %), 146 senior auditors (44.8 %), 31
senior inspectors (9.5 %), 118 auditors (36.2 %), and 21 inspectors (6.4 %). The survey results
were not varied significantly according to job title (p > 0.05, Chi squared test), indicating that the
survey sample structure is aligned with the matrix structure.

Demographic variable adjustments

The survey subjects in this study can be categorized on the basis of the following factors
(Table 2): (1) gender [women (52.1 %), men (47.9)]; (2) age [under 30 years (6.4 %), 31–
40 years (40.5 %), 41–50 years (38.7 %), 51–60 years (10.8 %), 60 years above (3.6 %)]; (3)
education level [master’s degree (51.2 %), bachelor’s degree (44.0 %)]; (4) auditing experience
[more than 15 years (33.4 %), 11–15 years (17.0 %), 5–10 years (20.1 %), <5 years (29.5 %)],
and (5) division affiliation [in local city or county Audit Offices (46.0 %), city Audit Divisions
(30.1 %), National Audit Office (16.9 %), Audit Division on Education and Agriculture (7.0 %)].
Table 2
Sample demographics of the poll (n = 326)

Item Percentage

Sex

Male 47.9

Female 52.1

Age

Under 30 6.4

31–40 40.5

41–50 38.7

51–60 10.8

60 above 3.6
Item Percentage

Job title

AAG 3.1

SA 44.8

SI 9.5

A 36.2

I 6.4

Auditing experience

Under 5 years 29.5

5–10 20.1

11–15 17.0
Item Percentage

15 above 33.4

Education

Prof. school 4.8

Bachelor 44.0

Master 51.2

Division

NAO 16.9

EA/TC 7.0

5 CAD 30.1

16 CAO 46.0

Open in a separate window

AAG assistant auditor general, SA senior auditor, SI senior inspector, Aauditor, I Inspector, NAO National Audit
Office, EA/TC Audit Division on Education and Agriculture, Audit Division on Construction of Transportation and
Communication, 5CAD 5 City Audit Division, 16 CAO 16 County Audit Offices

Current state of professional development

Results of the averages for all sections showed that “learning motivation” obtained the highest
score (3.71), whereas “training opportunity” obtained the lowest score (3.34). In the
“organizational culture” section, the “organization has established internal network to share
knowledge and experience” received the most agreement (3.76); “organization frequently holds
formal meeting to discuss and share knowledge” obtained lower score (3.15). In the “learning
motivation” section, “my work provides opportunities to learn new knowledge” received the
most agreement (3.94), followed by “I get a sense of accomplishment from work” (3.88) and “I
learn from my and others experiences” (3.87). Furthermore, “I seek opportunities rather than
wait for the occasion” (3.44) and “My work is stimulating and challenging” (3.43) obtained
lower scores. Finally, for the “training opportunity” section, “the current work provides
opportunities for me to learn and grow” received the most agreement (3.68); “organization
provides training that responds to individual need” (3.15) and “organization trainings are
sufficient to educate and improve the required skills” (3.11) obtained lower scores.

Current status of self-efficacy

Results of the averages for all sections showed that “profession and experience” obtained the
highest score (3.81), whereas “trend and performance” obtained the lowest score (3.53). In the
“profession and experience” section, “I am professional” received the most agreement (3.87),
followed by “I have practical audit experience” (3.84) and “my past achievements and
experiences help me to increase my confidence level for success” (3.81). Moreover, “I can find
several solutions when facing a difficulty” obtained lower score (3.73). In the “confidence and
effort” section, “I can always solve a problem no matter how hard it is” received the most
agreement (3.85); “I can easily stick to and achieve the goal” obtained lower score (3.10).
Finally, for the “trend and performance” section, “I can plan and organize” received the most
agreement (3.77), followed by “I have good oral communication skill” (3.46); “I am sensitive to
the development of new technology and know how to apply it to my work” obtained lower score
(3.36).

Current state of audit quality

Results of the averages for all sections showed that “mission goal” obtained the highest score
(3.85), whereas “leadership management” obtained the lowest score (3.47). In the “leadership
management” section, “Supervisors inform my mistakes and advise me how to rectify them”
received the most agreement (3.68), followed by “organization emphasizes team discipline”
(3.64); “performance management system helps me understand what supervisors’ and
organization’s expectation of me” (3.30) and “evaluation results reflect the performance” (3.29)
obtained lower scores. In the “professional quality” section, “my work quality meets certain
standards” received the most agreement (3.81); “I am visionary in auditing” obtained lower score
(3.44). In the “mission goal” section, “I do my best to complete tasks” received the most
agreement (3.98); “I clearly understand organizational goals and direction” obtained lower score
(3.73). Finally, for the “client value” section, “I take responsibility to solve client problems”
received the most agreement (3.62); “I give constructive advice to my client” obtained lower
score (3.53).

Difference analysis of survey subject attributes-influencing the professional

development
Because of the background requirements and conservative organizational culture of the auditing
profession, promotions and job performance are associated with seniority. Thus, the age of our
respondents was highly correlated with seniority and job title (r = 0.734, 0.622, and 0.752,
respectively). Therefore, we performed analysis of variance on various age groups on the basis of
different years of experience and job titles (Table 3). The results revealed age to be a significant
factor in organizational culture(p < 0.003). The results on age demonstrated that the average
number was lowest in the age group of 31–40 years. Within organizational culture, the survey
subjects from various age groups held different views on the following statements: “The
organization established an internal network for sharing knowledge and experience,” “The
organization emphasizes teamwork for reaching a consensus,” “The organization emphasizes
innovative personal initiative,” “The organization encourages staff members to acquire
knowledge to form new ideas and take action,” and “The organization frequently holds formal
meetings to discuss and share knowledge.” Moreover, respondents with different years of
auditing experience felt significantly different toward organizational culture (p < 0.010). The
average number was lowest for those with 5–10 years of auditing experience. As mentioned,
regarding the assessment of organizational culture, according to the number of years of auditing
experience, respondents perceived the following statements differently: “The organization has
established an internal network for sharing knowledge and experience,” “The organization
frequently holds formal meetings to discuss and share knowledge,” “The organization
emphasizes individual performance and growth,” and “The organization focuses on personal
achievements.”
Table 3
Differentiated analysis on respondents’ attributes

Age Auditing experience Job title

<3 31 41 51 >6 pval <5 ye 5– 10 >1 p- A I SA SI AA p-

0 – – – 0 ue ars 10 – 5 val G val
40 50 60 15 ue ue

Professional development
 Age Auditing experience Job title

<3 31 41 51 >6 pval <5 ye 5– 10 >1 p- A I SA SI AA p-

0 – – – 0 ue ars 10 – 5 val G val
40 50 60 15 ue ue

Organizati 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.8 0.00 3.44 3.3 3.5 3.6 0.0 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.2 0.0
onal 8 9 0 6 9 3 4 6 3 10 7 6 0 5 7 00
culture

Learning 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 0.05 3.64 3.6 3.6 3.8 0.1 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.4 0.0
motivation 3 7 3 2 4 6 9 8 0 04 4 9 9 2 0 00

Training 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.7 0.10 3.28 3.2 3.4 3.4 0.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.5 4.1 0.0
opportunit 6 7 3 8 7 0 2 3 1 80 7 8 9 1 5 01
y

Self-efficacy

Profession 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.0 4.2 0.00 3.51 3.7 3.8 4.0 0.0 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.5 0.0
and 0 7 2 5 7 0 8 5 6 00 7 5 1 0 4 00
experience
 Age Auditing experience Job title

<3 31 41 51 >6 pval <5 ye 5– 10 >1 p- A I SA SI AA p-

0 – – – 0 ue ars 10 – 5 val G val
40 50 60 15 ue ue

Confidenc 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.0 0.00 3.38 3.5 3.5 3.7 0.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.4 0.0
e and 3 5 7 8 4 0 0 4 2 00 0 6 6 4 2 00
effort

Trend and 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.7 4.0 0.00 3.32 3.5 3.5 3.7 0.0 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 4.3 0.0
Performan 2 5 4 8 0 0 3 1 3 00 7 6 6 1 7 00
ce

Audit quality

Leadershi 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7 0.05 3.43 3.3 3.4 3.5 0.1 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.1 0.0
p 7 8 9 4 7 8 5 8 8 15 4 4 5 9 8 00
manageme
nt

Profession 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.1 0.00 3.39 3.6 3.7 3.9 0.0 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.4 0.0
quality 1 3 5 0 6 0 7 2 1 00 5 4 8 6 3 00
 Age Auditing experience Job title

<3 31 41 51 >6 pval <5 ye 5– 10 >1 p- A I SA SI AA p-

0 – – – 0 ue ars 10 – 5 val G val
40 50 60 15 ue ue

Mission 3.7 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.1 0.00 3.72 3.8 3.8 4.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.5 0.0
goal 0 4 9 0 7 0 1 2 0 00 4 9 8 2 8 00

Client 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.9 3.9 0.00 3.41 3.4 3.6 3.7 0.0 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 0.0
value 9 6 4 0 2 0 9 8 4 00 1 9 4 1 3 00

Open in a separate window

Regarding various job titles, the average number of assistant auditor generals was higher than
that of senior auditors, senior inspectors, auditors, and inspectors. Assistant auditor generals,
who are competent and possess vast practical experience, exhibited more advantages compared
with auditors and inspectors, who in turn scored higher than did assistant auditors and assistant
inspectors. Their abundant practical auditing experience and excellent performance history
enable them to understand the profession and culture more in depth, and to advance professional
development programs that inspire learning, stimulate knowledge sharing, and promote self-
realization.
The survey results revealed that the lowest participant scores were from those in the age group of
31–40 years, with between 5 and 10 years of experience in organizational culture. Because the
auditors in this age group were facing promotional pressure at this critical stage in their career,
they wanted to believe that most problems could be solved through hard work. Employees hope
that their organizations can focus on personal achievements.

Professional development and self-efficacy on audit quality

Because the majority of the survey respondents were from two age groups [i.e., 31–40 years
(40.5 %) and 41–50 years (38.7 %)], we further analyzed the effects of professional development
and self-efficacy on the audit quality on the basis of gender, age, and auditing experience
(Table 4). The p values indicated the degree to which each statement affected the audit quality.
(a) The result from the male auditors between the ages of 31 and 40 indicated that organizational
culture, learning motivation, as well as confidence and effort affected audit quality. (b) The
female auditors of the same age group indicated that organizational culture, training
opportunities, confidence and effort, and trend and performanceaffected the audit quality. (c) For
auditors aged 41–50 with more than 15 years of auditing experience, the men indicated
that organizational culture, training opportunities, and profession and experience affected the
audit quality. (d) As for women in the same age group also with 15 years of experience indicated
that organizational culture, profession and experience, as well as trend and
performance affected the audit quality.
Table 4
The differentiated analysis of gender, age, and experience

Gender Age Auditing experience

31–40 41–50 5–10 >15

M F M F M F M F

R2adj 0.767 0.616 0.714 0.754 0.793 0.496 0.737 0.746

Professional development

Organizational culture

Mean 3.48 3.31 3.62 3.42 3.31 3.36 3.79 3.46

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.067 0.038 0.003 0.002

Learning motivation

Mean 3.78 3.57 3.78 3.69 3.78 3.61 3.89 3.70

p-value 0.000 0.415 0.353 0.722 0.239 0.233 0.859 0.851

Training opportunity

Mean 3.26 3.27 3.49 3.22 3.15 3.28 3.60 3.21

p-value 0.170 0.047 0.047 0.112 0.075 0.005 0.024 0.974

Self-efficacy

Profession and experience

 Gender Age Auditing experience

31–40 41–50 5–10 >15

M F M F M F M F

R2adj 0.767 0.616 0.714 0.754 0.793 0.496 0.737 0.746

Mean 3.74 3.62 3.88 3.95 3.79 3.78 4.10 4.00

p-value 0.800 0.355 0.046 0.001 0.145 0.107 0.016 0.008

Confidence and effort

Mean 3.56 3.35 3.64 3.52 3.56 3.45 3.86 3.57

p-value 0.009 0.02 0.658 0.055 0.013 0.496 0.910 0.303

Trend and performance

Mean 3.46 3.27 3.73 3.57 3.59 3.48 3.89 3.56

p-value 0.373 0.021 0.775 0.002 0.220 0.111 0.266 0.003

Open in a separate window

Impact analysis of each factor

To analyze the impact of each factor on audit quality, we performed a regression analysis and
obtained a model:
y = .516 + .263x1 + .199x2 + .130x3 + .125x4 + .084x5 + .066x6.
The results of regression analysis of professional development (organizational culture, learning
motivation, and training opportunities), self-efficacy (profession and experience, confidence and
effort, as well as trend and performance) on audit quality indicated that Table 5 (a)
organizational culture, (b) profession and experience, (c) trend and performance, (d) confidence
and effort, and (e) training opportunity significantly positively affected audit quality. The
obtained F-ratio for the significance of multiple R was equal to 73.7. The square of multiple R
(R2) was 0.732 suggesting that all the six predictors jointly accounted for 73 % of the total
variance in audit quality. Among these factors, organizational culture, profession and experience,
as well as trend and performance were the most crucial.
Table 5
Regression analysis on audit quality

Independent variables Understand (β) (β) T-value R2

Constant 0.516

Organizational culture (x1) 0.263 0.368 8.730*** 0.737

Profession and experience (x2) 0.199 0.231 5.436***

Trend and performance (x3) 0.130 0.175 4.421***

Confidence and effort (x4) 0.125 0.163 3.403**

Training opportunity (x5) 0.084 0.132 3.324**

Learning motivation (x6) 0.066 0.072 1.669

** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001, F value = 149.095, adjusted R 2 = 0.73

Because of the rapid development of science and technology, performance audits are now being
associated with numerous fields, such as the policy sciences. A competent auditor is an expert on
audit theory and has expertise in combining technological, managerial, and other relevant
information on technology concepts to design a more efficient work process, thereby reducing
workloads and allowing more time for training.

Regression analysis on professional development, self-efficacy, and audit quality

Table 6 lists the linear effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables. Self-
efficacy had a significantly positive effect on audit quality (β = 0.735, p < 0.001), and the
explanatory power was 54.0 %. A detailed analysis of each aspect of self-efficacy revealed
that profession and experience, confidence and effort, as well as trend and performance had a
significantly positive impact on profession quality for audit quality (β = 0.766, 0.725, and
0.707, p < 0.001). Furthermore, profession and experience, confidence and effort, as well
as trend and performance had a significantly positive effect on mission goal for audit quality
(β = 0.553, 0.592, and 0.556, respectively, p < 0.001).
Table 6
Regression analysis on audit quality

Variable name Audit quality

Leadership management Profession quality Mission goal Client value

Professional development

Organizational culture

(β) 0.750 0.389 0.499 0.334

t-value 20.402*** 7.606*** 10.351*** 6.387***

Learning motivation

(β) 0.500 0.562 0.594 0.471

Variable name Audit quality

Leadership management Profession quality Mission goal Client value

t-value 10.397*** 12.219*** 13.296*** 9.619***

Training opportunity

Mean 0.608 0.378 0.404 0.324

t-value 13.792*** 7.347*** 7.951*** 6.166***

Self-efficacy

Profession and experience

(β) 0.241 0.766 0.553 0.504

t-value 4.473*** 21.440*** 11.941*** 10.516***

Confidence and effort

 Variable name Audit quality

Leadership management Profession quality Mission goal Client value

(β) 0.418 0.725 0.592 0.504

t-value 8.291*** 18.941*** 13.206*** 10.510***

Trend and performance

(β) 0.298 0.707 0.556 0.462

t-value 5.620*** 17.985*** 12.046*** 9.364***

Open in a separate window

*** p < 0.001

Overall, professional development had a significantly positive impact on audit quality

(β = 0.766, p < 0.001), and the explanatory power was 58.7 %. A detailed analysis of each aspect
revealed that organizational culture, learning motivation, and training opportunities had a
significantly positive effect on leadership management for audit quality (β = 0.750, 0.500, and
0.608, respectively, p < 0.001). Moreover, learning motivationsignificantly affected profession
quality for audit quality (β = 0.562, p < 0.001). Organizational culture and learning
motivation were found to have a significantly positive effect on mission goal for audit quality
(β = 0.499 and 0.594, respectively, p < 0.001).

Discussion on mediating effects

For this study, we used the variance inflation factor (VIF) to test the collinearity. Because the
VIF value was 1.476 (<10), the data set was not collinear. Professional
development (β = 0.568, p < 0.001) positively affected self-efficacy. Moreover, professional
development (β = 0.766, p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (β = 0.735, p < 0.001) had a significantly
positive effect on audit quality. In further considering the mediator, we determined that
for professional development (β = 0.515, p < 0.001), self-efficacy remained significant
(β = 0.443, p < 0.001; Table 7). These results revealed that self-efficacy exhibits a partial
mediating effect, but without collinearity.
Table 7
Mediating effect analysis

Dependent variables Independent variables (β) t-value R2 F-value VIF

Self-efficacy Professional development 0.568 12.416 0.322 154.156 1.000

Audit quality Self-efficacy 0.735 19.511 0.540 380.677 1.000

Audit quality Professional development 0.766 21.469 0.587 460.911 1.000

Audit quality Self-efficacy 0.443 12.372 0.720 415.156 1.476

Professional development 0.515 14.397

Open in a separate window

Self-efficacy has been shown to have positive impact on performance management in various
fields. This study explored if the same relationship exhibits in audit profession in which the
demand on audit quality are ever increasing. By the wave of promoting performance audit,
auditors are under increasing pressure to raise performance. The study showed that professional
development has partial mediating effect on audit quality.
Go to:

Discussion
Audits optimize government function by evaluating the legitimacy, economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of how administrative branches utilize resources. For example, audit authorities
have revealed that the Taiwan government previously constructed so-called “mosquito
buildings” (idle buildings “used only by mosquitoes”) to create an illusion of public construction
achievement and opportunities for kickbacks. Such construction squandered and unevenly
distributed government funds. The number of mosquito buildings reached of 163, but an
effective auditing has reduced this figure to nine. Auditing reports can effectively provide
opinion and suggestions to further improve the performance of the executive branches. The key
to quality auditing is to review policies from an international perspective so as to provide insight,
predictions, and warnings for comparison.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between professional development,
self-efficacy, and audit quality. The ordinary least squares (OLS) to perform multiple regression
analysis has been utilized to calculate the coefficient estimates. Self-efficacy
(β = 0.568, p < 0.001) is found to have been influenced by professional development, and thus
supporting H1 as described in (Fig. 2). As predicted in H2, self-efficacy has influenced audit
quality (β = 0.735, p < 0.001). Finally, audit quality has been found to have been influenced by
professional development (β = 0.766, p < 0.001), and thus supporting H3. Self-efficacy and audit
quality have found to have a positive correlation. High self-efficacy typically leads to higher
audit quality, and self-efficacy has immense effects on an individual’s motivation, effort,
persistence and performance. Professional development and audit quality have found to have a
positive correlation. High profession growth typically leads to higher audit quality. Therefore,
self-efficacy and professional development affects audit quality.
We have found that most respondents have believed that there are numerous opportunities for
personal growth in their organizations and that their jobs have provided opportunities for future
development. This is because auditors are routinely assigned tasks that vary in complexity and
industry. Job enrichment provides a sense of control over one’s work environment and motivates
people to exercise their full potential, thus presenting more opportunities for employee success.
However, they have also believed that audit authorities have not provided enough knowledge to
enable them to share auditing experiences and educational training. Auditors must share
knowledge and expertise on industry-specific trends with members of the audit team as well as
their accounting, auditing, and regulatory concerns that may influence the performance and
outcome of an audit. In addition, audit authorities must create, integrate, share, and use
knowledge regarding their clients’ control activities and corporate governance. Implementing
these knowledge-based activities effectively is increasingly critical for audit authorities for
maintaining their competitive advantage, including gaining tangible benefits regarding time and
cost reductions. Thus, sharing knowledge can aid audit authorities in leveraging the skills,
knowledge, and optimal practices of their professional staff members. More training and
recruitment of talented employees would enhance audit processes which in turn would have a
favorable impact on audit outcomes.
We have also found that auditors generally have a positive attitude toward their professional
abilities and experience, confirming the view that experience can increase self-efficacy.
However, auditors were found to be less confident in communication skills and remaining
abreast of technological developments, indicating that audit methodologies, work procedures,
and communication with clients can be improved further. Working in a diversified environment,
auditors must be administrative and management experts as well as internal-control designers for
(a) adhering to audit principles and learning advanced auditing methods, (b) nurturing a sense of
innovation for developing novel audit processes and methods, and (c) creating new audit-
operating mechanisms. Audit quality reflects a carefully designed audit process that involves
recruiting talented employees to be properly motivated and trained, thus enabling them to
understand inherent uncertainties and adjust audit strategies to accommodate unique client
conditions. Being efficiently and effectively requires continual education and training on mentor
and knowledge sharing. The appropriate use of IT assets results in organizational innovations
and facilitates redesigning business processes, and favorable competitive dynamics generate
improvements in organizational performance because of such organizational innovations.
Therefore, increasing the value of the audit profession in a complex audit environment
necessitates constantly adapting to new types of technology and updating auditing concepts. Past
work performance significantly affects an individual’s self-efficacy and that continual success
indubitably enhances an individual’s self-efficacy, whereas constant failure creates personal
doubt and reduces personal self-efficacy. Accordingly, the proposed methods for increasing the
self-efficacy of auditors include the following: (a) successful experience from past assignments;
(b) self-confidence in one’s potential for achieving goals; and (c) understanding that a
performance audit is not a difficult task, but a favorable success model. Therefore, audit tasks
should be rotated among staff members for enabling effective cross training. In this manner, staff
members would become more versatile and strengthened by learning from one another, and
auditors’ self-efficacy could thus be increased for maintaining high audit sensitivity.
The results of the survey revealed that auditors were typically satisfied with how they plan,
execute, and accomplish tasks. Auditors usually followed standard procedures for accomplishing
tasks. However, the audit field assignment was executed on the basis of task units. Because the
knowledge and skills of auditing are complex, audit quality and performance rely on the
specialization and audit environment. The auditing process usually concludes with a report,
which is a compilation of reports from each member of the field task unit. Thus, teamwork
affects the quality of audit reporting and requires that team leaders guide every member. Leaders
should recognize that developing cooperative relationships among team members promotes team
effectiveness. Therefore, teamwork has been proven to be a significant factor affecting the
quality of an audit report. By contrast, an effective audit recommendation should be based on
evidence that practically resolves issues in accordance with regulations. When auditors lack on-
the-job training, they are incapable of issuing a fair judgment and thus cannot deliver a report,
which would otherwise present opinions on how to effectively use a budget. Performance
management can be improved by developing visionary thinking and providing constructive
recommendations in an audit report. An audit report can provide information and useful
references for further improving the performance of executive branches, thus preventing
redundant “mosquito” museums, harbors, and facilities from being built.
Auditing experience and professionalization positively influenced professional skepticism,
which, in addition to an auditor’s knowledge and skillset, can improve professional judgment.
Experienced baby boomers are rapidly nearing retirement age, and their accumulated wisdom
and expertise could soon be inaccessible. Shrivastava and Purang (2011) indicated that feedback
was effective in the presence of a strong link between performance improvement and valued
outcomes. Brown and Duguid (2000) found that the loss of professional autonomy associated
with structured audit approaches increased the turnover rate among senior audit staff members
and, by extension, resulted in the loss of knowledge possessed by exiting personnel. Leaders
should create an open culture that is conducive to mentoring, where people learn from one
another through a wide variety of formal and informal relationships at an enterprise level. Thus,
everyone can reap the benefits of mentoring. Specifically, mentoring others or sharing
knowledge can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of audit procedures.
The survey results revealed that the lowest participant scores were from those in the age group of
31–40 years, with between 5 and 10 years of experience in organizational culture, training
opportunities, and leadership management. Because the auditors in this age group were facing
promotional pressure at this critical stage in their career, they wanted to believe that most
problems could be solved through hard work. Employees hope that their organizations can focus
on personal achievements. They also wish to participate in official or unofficial meetings to
discuss and share knowledge, thus enabling them to develop and grow on a broad scale. Thus,
knowledge sharing can help audit authorities leverage the skills, knowledge, and optimal
practices of their professional staff members. Auditors must share with members of the audit
team their knowledge and expertise on industry-specific trends as well as accounting, auditing,
and regulatory concerns that may influence the performance and outcome of an audit. In any
organization, the highest performing individual is typically recognized. Performance evaluations
can enable workers to gain an improved understanding of their work, performance, and even
themselves. Moreover, they can improve mutual understanding between supervisors and
workers, thereby inducing motivation. Furthermore, as a foundation for promotions and salary
adjustments, performance management can be useful for “training and molding” as a method of
instilling team spirit and a sense of unity. Thus, timely rewards that are provided to employees
whose personal efforts yield high-quality audit can instill team spirit and a sense of unity.
Both male and female auditors in the age group of 31–40 years indicated that organizational
culture as well as confidence and effort affected the audit quality. Because the auditors in this
age group were facing promotional pressure at a critical stage in their career, they focused on
personal achievements and knowledge sharing. When input effort is correlated with the
performance outcome, most problems can be resolved with hard work. On the basis of past
success, self-efficacy increases. By focusing on work, they can develop and experience a sense
of fulfillment. As for the auditors in the age group of 41–50 with more than 15 years of
experience indicated that organizational culture as well as profession and experience affected
the audit quality. Abdolmohammadi and Wright (1987) reported that for unstructured tasks, the
complexity of a task is most influenced by the experience of a worker. Bierstaker and Wright
(2001) found that auditors’ experience significantly influenced their ability to solve practical
problems. Experience had a positive impact on audit decision. Specifically, the male auditors in
this age group with more than 15 years of experience indicated that training opportunities were
more crucial. Their female counterparts indicated that trend and performance were more crucial
because advances in technology can improve work efficiency, thereby increasing the time
available for training, which enhances the audit quality.
We found that profession quality exerted a significantly positive effect on profession and
experience, confidence and effort, as well as trend and performance, leadership
management exerted a significantly positive effect on organizational culture, learning
motivation, and training opportunities, indicating that an effective learning environment and
adequate resources can enhance the potential of auditors. Learning from an audit system and
from the experience of those from other countries, auditors in the Taiwan government have been
advancing. Within an audit authority, an organization encourages team, model, and target
learning to increase auditors’ professional growth. In utilizing information technology,
organizational knowledge can be shared faster and easier. By sharing auditing experience,
auditors can enhance their preparation by studying the relevant information of each stage before
an audit. The audit would become more effective as a result of a more detailed and improved
strategic inspection. Knowledge sharing and learning enhance audit value and facilitate the
sustainment of high audit sensitivity, thereby enabling the audit report to provide more efficient
and cost-effective recommendations for improving governmental performance.
Go to:

Conclusion
After having surveyed nearly 50 % of all the governmental auditors in Taiwan, we have found
that experience to be one most significant factor in their auditing efficacy. Auditing experience
and professionalization positively influenced professional awareness, which, with the knowledge
and specialty of an auditor, can improve professional judgment. Audit authorities benefit from
the implicit knowledge of their employees; people are the most crucial information carriers and
the most abundant assets in governmental audit authorities. Therefore, with increasing age,
experience, and position, government auditors become more equipped to identify critical errors,
process analyses, evaluate audit risks, disclose internal-control mistakes, authenticate complex
evidence charts, and issue professional judgments.
Auditors in the age group of 41–50 with more than 15 years of experience indicated that
organizational culture as well as profession and experience had a significantly positive impact on
leadership management, profession quality, mission goal, and client value in audit quality.
However, senior auditors have been observed to have responded to workload pressure by
expending little or no time in providing feedback to audit staff members under their charge.
Also, auditor turnover has reduced knowledge sharing in an audit. On the basis of these results,
we recommend that the Taiwan government improve its current working environment and
enhance job training on mentoring. To foster knowledge sharing, recruitment and selection
should favor people who are open to learning and using novel concepts and practices. Audit
authorities should include specific guidance in their recruiting policies that will aid recruiters in
identifying candidates who exhibit individual-level traits consistent with the organization’s goal
and values that are commonly associated with the ability to work effectively in teams and share
knowledge. Simultaneously, audit authorities can begin using technology to help people forge
new relationships across traditional boundaries in order to expand learning networks. Making use
of peer coaching, mentoring circles, and learning partners can provide favorable opportunities for
individuals to build their own developmental networks. To enhance knowledge sharing between
preparers and reviewers in the work-paper review process, training should be tailored to the
specific needs of different ranks of auditors. In addition, audit authorities should encourage
knowledge sharing, cross-training, and strategic job rotation among different generations to
integrate baby boomers’ experience with the creativity of Millennials. Such practice can result in
groundbreaking innovations.
According to examples from other countries, the National Audit Office of Taiwan evaluates audit
quality in five areas: leadership, personnel, auditing, clients, and continual improvement. To
improve communication among audited units, audit authorities should understand that
reprimanding people or challenging policies is not the main purpose of a performance audit.
Auditors should focus on the outcomes of a policy to obtain insightful results and
recommendations for governing without interfering with the executive branch. Therefore, audit
authorities positively affect society by increasing the economic value of audited units. Because
the main aim of a performance audit is to improve government performance, audit authorities
should strive to develop collaborative partnerships with the executive and legislative branches to
aid in enhancing governance. Leaders should recognize that developing cooperative goals among
team members is essential for reinforcing these values and ensuring the credibility. Our study
showed that the evaluation, performance, and value of outputs and outcomes evidently rely on
auditors’ self-efficacy as well as profession and experience. Auditors should maintain a strong
and professional relationship with audited units, enabling them to appropriately communicate
audit results, thereby effectively improving governing performance. Thus, the key to quality
audit involves inspecting policies from an international perspective to provide insight,
predictions, and warnings. According to the mission statement of the American Accounting
Association, the auditing profession should “foster excellence in the teaching, research, and
practice of auditing and assurance services.” Accordingly, the core competencies of auditors are
as follows: (a) communication ability and leadership for inspiring people to achieve common
goals; (b) the ability to conduct comprehensive financial analyses, provide insight, and offer
constructive recommendations; and (c) an awareness of new technological trends and the ability
to apply advanced technology to increase client and employee value. Audit authorities should
operate on the basis of public governance perspectives and focus on regulatory and performance
auditing to ensure that the executive branch utilizes funds legally, enabling it to economically
and efficiently achieve goals.
Overall, the survey findings indicated that self-efficacy and professional development
significantly influenced the audit quality. Employers should focus on improving employee self-
efficacy for enhancing both individual and organizational performance. When they have assisted
each other in achieving their tasks and goals, they would have felt the needed individual support
being fully vindicated. Employee self-efficacy can be vicariously enhanced through counseling,
job enrichment, proper guidance training, development programs, challenges, and autonomous
jobs and rewards. In addition to establishing an internal network, organizations should hold
frequent formal meetings to discuss and share knowledge and experience. They should also
provide a knowledge-sharing platform and educational training to improve efficiency, thereby
increasing the available training to enhance audit quality. When employees believe that they are
advancing, their work is meaningful, and their working environment is conducive to develop,
their teams are well-structured, and they have sufficient resources, they are most likely motivated
to receive more training for better development and efficient execution. Supporting the
professional growth of staff members will definitely improve their task performance and
personal satisfaction.
To avoid discouraging auditors from responding to our survey, we had not included several
performance variables such as recommendations and balances in audit reports, amounts returned
to the national treasury, and the number of staff members who had been reprimanded. And future
studies can include these variables for comparison. Arguably, audit quality is difficult to define
and quantify, and we recommend future research using alternative measures of audit quality to
validate and elaborate on our findings. Several factors examined such as professional
development and self-efficacy in this study likely affect audit quality directly, whereas others are
more likely to mediate or moderate audit quality. We will encourage future research that
empirically examine direct, moderating, or mediating effects on audit quality so as to obtain a
more comprehensive picture of good audit quality with respect to the area covered in this study.
 Go to:

Authors’ contributions
Writing: S-CL; Providing case and idea: J-MS; Providing revised advice: S-BT, T-LL, WD. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Go to:

Acknowledgements
Genomic Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. Department of Technology Management,
Chung-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
Go to:

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Go to:

Contributor Information
Shue-Ching Lee, Email: wt.ude.acinis.etag@5288c.
Jau-Ming Su, Email: wt.ude.uhc@usgnimj.
Sang-Bing Tsai, Email: moc.liamtoh@gnibgnas.
Tzu-Li Lu, Email: wt.vog.bef@retepueL.
Weiwei Dong, Email: moc.361@4949gnodiewiew.
Go to:

References

 Abdolmohammadi M, Wright A. An examination of the effects of experience and task

complexity on audit judgments. Account Rev. 1987;62:1–13.
 Ames C. Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J Educ
Psychol. 1992;84:261–271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261. [Cross Ref]
 Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Acad Marking
Sci. 1988;16:76–94.
 Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychol
Rev. 1977;84:191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
 Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1986.
 Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal
agency. Psychologist. 1989;2:411–424.
 Bandura A. Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In: Schwarzer R, Wicklund RA,
editors. Anxiety and self-focused attention. New York: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1991.
pp. 89–110.
 Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman; 1997.
 Beck P, Wu M. Learning by doing and audit quality. Contemp Account Res. 2006;23(1):1–
30. doi: 10.1506/AXU4-Q7Q9-3YAB-4QE0. [Cross Ref]
 Bedard JC, Deis DR, Curtis MB, Jenkins JG. Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: a
research synthesis. Audit J Pract Theory. 2008;27(1):187–218. doi:
10.2308/aud.2008.27.1.187.[Cross Ref]
 Bierstaker JL, Wright S. A research note concerning practical problem solving ability as a
predictor of performance in auditing tasks. Behav Res Account. 2001;13:49–62. doi:
10.2308/bria.2001.13.1.49. [Cross Ref]
 Bobek DD, Daugherty BE, Radtke RR. Resolving audit engagement challenges through
communication. Audit J Pract Theory. 2012;31:21–45. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50210. [Cross Ref]
 Brazel JF, Agoglia CP, Hatfield RC. Electronic versus face-to-face review: the effects of
alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance. Account Rev. 2004;79:949–966. doi:
10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.949. [Cross Ref]
 Brown JS, Duguid P. Balancing act: how to capture knowledge without killing it. Harv Bus
Rev. 2000;78(3):73–80. [PubMed]
 Cabrera A, Collins WC, Salgado JF. Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge
sharing. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2006;17:245–264. doi:
10.1080/09585190500404614.[Cross Ref]
 Carcello JV, Hermanson DR, Riley RA. Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemp
Account Res. 2002;19(3):365–384. doi: 10.1506/CHWK-GMQ0-MLKE-K03V. [Cross Ref]
 Cervone D, Jiwani N, Wood R. Goal setting and the differential influence of self-regulatory
processes on complex decision-making performance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61:257–266.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.257. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
 Charkhabi M, Azizi Abarghuei M, Hayati D. The association of academic burnout with self-
efficacy and quality of learning experience among Iranian
students. Springerplus. 2013;2:677. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-677. [PMC free
article] [PubMed][Cross Ref]
 Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what the
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
 DeAngelo LE. Auditor size and audit quality. J Account Econ. 1981;3:183–199. doi:
10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1.[Cross Ref]
 Dodgson M. Organizational learning: a review of literatures. Organ Sci. 1993;14:375–394.
 Epps KK, Messier WF. Engagement quality reviews: a comparison of audit firm
practices. Audit J Pract Theory. 2007;26:167–181. doi: 10.2308/aud.2007.26.2.167. [Cross
Ref]
 Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2008) The audit quality
framework. http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/FRC-Board/The-Audit-Quality-
Framework-%281%29.aspx
 Gist ME, Mitchell TR. Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Acad Manag Rev. 1992;17(2):183–211.
 Green W. Are industry-specialists more efficient and effective in performing analytical
procedures? A multi-stage analysis. Int J Audit. 2008;12(3):243–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-
1123.2008.00383.x. [Cross Ref]
 Hall BP. Values development and learning organizations. J Knowl Manage. 2001;5(1):19–
32. doi: 10.1108/13673270110384374.[Cross Ref]
 Hayati D, Charkhabi M, Naami A. The relationship between transformational leadership and
work engagement in governmental hospitals nurses: a survey study. Springerplus. 2014;3:25.
doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-25. [PMC free article][PubMed] [Cross Ref]
 Hendriks P. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowl Process Manag. 1999;6:91–100. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1441(199906)6:2<91::AID-KPM54>3.0.CO;2-M. [Cross Ref]
 Hoy WK, Miskel CG. Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. 6. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
 Hsu M-H, Ju TL, Yen C-H, Chang C-M. Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Int J
Hum Comput Stud. 2007;65(2):153–169. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003.[Cross Ref]
 Huang C-C. Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: an empirical study
of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Tech Innov. 2009;29:786–797.
 Jashapara A. The competitive learning organization: a quest for Holy Grail. Manag
Decis. 1993;31(8):52–62. doi: 10.1108/00251749310047160. [Cross Ref]
 Johnson WB. The intentional mentor: strategies and guidelines for the practice of
mentoring. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2002;33(1):88–96. doi: 10.1037/0735-
7028.33.1.88.[Cross Ref]
 Klinge CM. A conceptual framework for mentoring in a learning organization. Adult
Learn. 2015;26:160–166. doi: 10.1177/1045159515594154. [Cross Ref]
 Knechel WR (2010) The importance of auditor judgment in improving audit quality. Plenary
session, University of Kansas auditing symposium
 Knechel WR, Krishnan GV, Pevzner M, Shefchik LB, Velury UK. Audit quality: insights
from the academic literature. Audit J Pract Theory. 2013;32:385–421. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-
50350.[Cross Ref]
 Lange PD, Jackling S, Suwardy T. Continuing professional development in the accounting
profession: practices and perceptions from the Asia Pacific Region. Account
Educ. 2015;24(1):41–56. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2014.1002800.[Cross Ref]
 Libby R, Luft J. Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: ability,
knowledge, motivation, and environment. Account Organ Soc. 1993;18(5):425–450. doi:
10.1016/0361-3682(93)90040-D. [Cross Ref]
 Low K-Y. The effects of industry specialization on audit risk assessments and audit planning
decisions. Account Rev. 2004;79(1):201–219. doi: 10.2308/accr.2004.79.1.201.[Cross Ref]
 Miguel M. Does auditor industry specialization improve audit quality? J Account
Res. 2013;51:779–817.
 Minix N (1987) Development and Use of a Goal Setting/Attainment Process Designed to
Measure a Teacher’s Ability to Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership Initiatives.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midsouth Education Research Association
 Moriarity S. Communicating financial information through multidimensional graphics. J
Account Res. 1979;17:205–224. doi: 10.2307/2490314. [Cross Ref]
 Nagy A. Audit partner specialization: the case of Andersen followers. Manag Audit
J. 2012;27:251–262. doi: 10.1108/02686901211207483. [Cross Ref]
 Nelson MW. A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Audit J
Pract Theory. 2009;28(2):1–34. doi: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1. [Cross Ref]
 Nelson M, Tan H-T. Judgment and decision making research in auditing: a task, person, and
interpersonal interaction perspective. Audit J Pract Theory. 2005;24(Supplement):41–71. doi:
10.2308/aud.2005.24.Supplement.41. [Cross Ref]
 Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
 Porter LW, Steers RM, Mowday RT, Boulian PV. Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. J Appl Psychol. 1974;59:603–609.
doi: 10.1037/h0037335. [Cross Ref]
 Randhawa G. Self-efficacy and work performance: an empirical study. Indian J Ind
Relat. 2004;39(3):336–346.
 Sadler P. Managerial leadership in a post-industrial society.Aldershot: Gower; 1988.
 Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized Self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S,
Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs.Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1995.
 Senge PM. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of learning organization. New York:
Currency Doubleday; 1990.
 Shrivastava A, Purang P. Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: a comparative
study on Indian banks. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2011;22(3):632–647. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2011.543639. [Cross Ref]
 Silvi R (2002) Knowledge management: a strategic cost management perspective. Working
paper, University of Bologna
 Stephens N. External auditor characteristics and internal control reporting under SOX
section 302. Manag Audit J. 2011;26:114–129. doi: 10.1108/02686901111095001.[Cross
Ref]
 Stewart T. Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations.New York: Doubleday; 1997.
 Tai WT. Effects of training framing, general self-efficacy and training motivation on
trainees’ training effectiveness. Pers Rev. 2006;35:51–65. doi:
10.1108/00483480610636786.[Cross Ref]
 Vera-Muñoz SC, Ho JL, Chow CW. Enhancing knowledge sharing in public accounting
firms. Account Horiz. 2006;20(2):133–155. doi: 10.2308/acch.2006.20.2.133. [Cross Ref]
 Wallach EJ. Individuals and organization: the cultural match. Train Dev J. 1983;37(2):28–36.
 Wallman S. The future of accounting, part III: reliability and auditor independence. Account
Horiz. 1996;10:76–97.